Skip to main content

Full text of "Protective clothing and equipment for firefighters: current standards and practices"

See other formats


•tjcLkc >r 

National Fire Prevention and Control Administration 
National Fire Safety and Research Office 


August 1978 

Protective Clothing 
& Equipment for 

Current Standards 
and Practices 

•3, Jf. 

Js Ave; 

Protective Clothing 
& Equipment For 

Current Standards 
and Practices 

A Report from: 

National Fire Prevention and Control Administration 
National Fire Safety & Research Office 
Washington, D.C. 20230 

Prepared by: 

Andrew F. Sears 


Edward V. Clougherty 


Executive Sxjnmary 

Introduction . 

Section 1 
Section 2 
Section 3 
Section 4 
Section 5 
Section 6 
Section 7 

Section 8: 



Helmets 3 

Face Shields and Goggles 7 

Fire Coats and Trousers 10 

Boots and Shoes 15 

Gloves 19 

Station Uniforms 22 

Respiratory Protective Devices 25 

Project "F.I.R.E.S." 29 


Information on current standards, specifications and advancements 
in firefighter protective clothing and equipment is often not readily 
accessible to fire departmaits at the time vftien they need it most~T^*len 
purchasing new clothing and equipment. To aid departments and other 
purchasers of firefighters' gear, the National Fire Prevention and 
Control Administration (NFPCA) , ccnpiled Protective Clothing and 
Equipment for Firefighters: Current StanBS^ and Practices . 

This document provides an assessment of the state-of-the-art in 
protective clothing and equipment and describes relevant standards vMch 
fire departments can ijse in developing purchase specifications. 

The areas covered by the full report are: 


Face Shields and Goggles 

Fire Coats and Trousers 

Boots and Shoes 


Station Uniforms 

Respiratory Protective Devices 


The NFPCA, based on research conducted by the Institute for 
Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards, published 
Model Performance Criteria for Structmral Firefighters' 
Helmets . Helmets manufactured under the ncdel criteria 
si±)stantially increase the level of head protection now 
available for firefighters. Two manufacturers are now 
producing helmets T^Mch meet these model criteria. 

The NFPCA has made these model criteria available to the 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Cotrmittee on 
Protective Clothing and Equipment for Firefighters for its 
consideration in the development of a national concensus 
standard for structural firefighters' helmets. 

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard for 
Industrial Head Protection Class D, Type 1 is a subclass of 
this Standard applicable to a firefighter's protective helmet. 
Most currently available helmets designed with a plastic 
exterior shell and stispension system meet this standard. 
Metal and leather helmets xosually do not. 

The National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) , 
after conducting research into ANSI standards, conclxoded that 
the ANSI Standard did not provide an adequate level of protection, 
and that a helmet should be developed vMch would provide all 
around head protection and offer the advantages of both sling- 
suspension and the foamlined types of helmets. 

Hie British Standards Organization published specifications and 
performance criteria for helmets in 1956. Helmets vMch conform 
to the British Standard offer many of the protective features 
sxjggested in the NIOSH study. 

The International Association of Fire Fighters developed sample 
standards for protective clothing and equipment \^Mch could be 
incorporated into state OSHA plans (Occijpational Safety and Health 
Administration) . These standards incorporate suggestions from 
both NIOSH and the British Standard. 


ANSI Standards describe the devices available for eye and face 
protection, goggles, spectacles and face shields, and the 
facepiece of self contained breathing apparatus. Spectacles 
and goggles ^^rLch meet the applicable design and performance 
ANSI requirements for providing eye protection are generally 
known as "safety glasses;" face shields are not designed to 
provide eye protection. The Standard states that face shields 
should be worn over eye protection. 

A voluntary consensus standard is the main standard for eye and 
face protection in industry. However, it does not contain any 
special performance requirements pertaining to firefighters. 

NIOSH studies of this equipment reveal that face shields on the 
market today fail to meet the volvmtary consensus standard. 


o Fire Coats are usually constructed one of two ways: fabric 
outer shell, vapor barrier and permanent liner, a majority 
of American firefighters wear this type; and a coated fabric 
outer shell and peimanent liner is the second design. 

Fabric Outer Shell, Vapor Barrier and Permanent Liner 

o Design criteria and pxjrchase specifications are available from 
the following groins: 

In 1970 the Cleveland, Ohio Fire Department created certain 
specifications for this and other items. 


The National Bijreau of Standards published Design Criteria for 
Firefighters' Turnout Coats . 

The NFPA: Protective Clothing for Structural Fire Fighting, 
NFPA No. 1971, published in 1975. 

Coated Fabric Outer Shell, Permanent Liner 

o The above specifications do not adequately cover the construction 
of a fire coat with a coated fabric outer shell ^^Mch eliminates 
the need for a separate vapor liner. The Boston Fire Department 
developed specifications \^ch required resistance to ignition 
for this type of coat. 



Published specifications by the NFPA, NBS and Cleveland Fire 
Department provide details of a fire coat's caipdhent parts; 
however, they do not list requirements relating to thennal 
protective qualities in an assembled garment. 

The International Association of Fire Fighters (lAFF) has 
developed a proposed standard for construction requirements 
of fire coats and trousers relating to both fabric and coated 
fabric outer shell clothing. Reqmrements for ignition 
resistance by outer shells , vapor barriers , liners and winter 
liners are presented. A thermal protection performance require- 
ment for the assembled coat construction is included. 

o There is no voluntary standard for performance requirements 
and construction features. 

o Manufacturers cite standards for certain features: 

Inpact protection for toes may be based on performance criteria 
in the ANSI Standard designed for industrial work shoes and 
puncture protection for soles may be based on a military speci- 
fication for firefighter boots. 

o Military specifications may also be cited as the performance 
requirement for boots against leakage of water and solvents. 

o There is no accepted thermal protection performance requirement. 

o Protection against electrical hazards is generally not specified, 
although a level of protection is provided. 



Shoes worn by firefighters are generally industrial work shoes 
wit±i added protection such as puncture resistant insoles or 
extra reinforcements. Firef inters can asstjre themselves of 
protection against irrpact and penetration by purchasing safety 
shoes vdnich meet the same standards as boots. 

A Canadian Standard for industrial safety shoes outlines the 
performance criteria for inpact resistance and other features 
of construction. 

Fire departments have developed specifications for purchasing 
gloves which are usiially based on a manufacturer's field tests. 

There are no voluntary consensus standards for firefighters' 

The lAFF proposed sample standards for protective clothing and 
equipment, including protective gloves. 

NIOSH has sponsored research to develop performance criteria 
for gloves. 

California and Washington have developed OSHA standards for 
firefighter protective clothing which inclxides gloves. 


Protective clothing is intended to be worn vinder protective 
fire coats and other protective clothing and equipment vhen 
responding to fires and other emergencies. 

Requirements for protective features of station xjniforms vary 
in relation to the length and type of outer gear. 

Treated and flame-resistant fabrics for station uniforms are 
under review by several fire departments, spurred by reports 
of bum injuries aggravated by the failure and melting of 
cotton/polyester fabrics and by increasing availability of 
fabrics which offer some resistance to ignition. 

Ihere are no voluntary consensus standards for station uniforms. 

The lAFF has proposed a standard which requires the fabric to 
resist ignition and melting. 

The International Standards Organization (ISO) Si±)coninittee on 
Flameproof Clothing has proposed requirements regarding potential 
problems with fusible materials which can melt. 


o In developing performance criteria for firefighters' station 
uniforms, require fabrics that resist melting, decociposition 
or any physical or chemical process vMch would degrade their 
thermal properties in the range of heat flux and conditions 
that can be anticipated. 


o Three Federal agencies have construction and performance 
requirements for the "approval" of breathing apparatus. 
However, the demands placed on this equipment by the fire 
service far exceeds the performance reqxxLrements vArLch the 
Federal regulatory agencies use in their approval schedules. 

o Breathing apparatus made in the United States must be designed 
and constructed to meet performance requirements described in 
approval schedules developed by the Bureau of Mines and now under 
the jxjrisdiction of NIOSH and the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) . 

o The shortcanings of the available breathing apparatus and the 

known respiratory hazards faced in firefighting produce a dilermia 
not fully understood by the majority of occupational safety 
specialists, including firef inters, research scientists and 
regulatory officials. 

o The numerous problems encountered by the fire service in the 
use of breathing apparatus vMch conform to the approval 
schedules attest to the need for major revisions. The working 
conditions , special environment and work rates of firefighting 
need to be considered. 

o The need for revising the approval schedules of these regulatory 
agencies to consider the special needs of the fire services was 
recognized recently by NIOSH and MSHA, which are soliciting 
input from fire service organizations and other interested parties. 

o NFPA Standard 19B, Respiratory Protective Equipment for Fire- 
fighters, prohibits the use of filter masks for firefighting. 

o The ANSI ComuLttee on Respiratory Protection has pijblished a 
standard on the selection, care and vise of respiratory devices 
for the fire service. This was a follow-up to an earlier 
general standard. 

Project FIRES 

The state-of-the-art in protective clothing and eqiiipment for firefighters 
is being addressed in a joint project of the National Fitre Administration 
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The project, called 
Project FIRES (Firefighters Integrated Response Equipment System) , concerns 
the design and development of a safer, better "protective envelope" for 
the firefighters fighting structural fires. 


Over the past few decades, the industrial worker has received increasing 
attention with, respect to occxqiational safety and healt±i matters. Organizations 
such as the National Institute of Occijpational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , the 
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) , the Occxjpational Safety and Healtii 
Administration (OSHA) , among others have been established at the Federal level 
to promulgate and enforce safety and health standards. The establishment and 
enforcement of these standards have played a significant role in the inprovement 
in industrial occcqjational safety. This is supported by U.S. Department of 
Labor statistics indicating a continuing reduction of injuries and deaths of 
indxistrial workers. 

The inprovement in industrial safety and health is contrasted by the 
increasing numbers of injuries and deaths of the Nation's firefighters. 
Firefighters enployed by the Federal Government, industrial corpanies and 
private contract service conpanies are covered by t±ie regulations pronulgated 
by the Federal OSHA. Firefighters and all other enployees of state, municipal 
and other forms of local government are exoipted from the provisions of the 
Federal OSHA under the William Steiger Act. The Act provides for the devel- 
opment and inplementation of federally approved state OSHA plans vMch can 
siipercede the Federal plan and cover all errployees. Approximately hialf of 
the states now have approved state plans. The progress in the development 
and inplementatiOTi of Federal and state OSHA plans and the observed decrease 
in industrial deaths and injuries are contrasted by the absence of occi^Jational 
safety and health standards specifically developed for the fire service. The 
lack of sxoitable standards is apparent in both Federal and state OSHA plans 
vhich generally have deferred action in standards applicable to firefighters 
or are currently attempting to referan.ce standards developed by consensus 
standards organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) , and by the International 
Association of Fire Fighters (lAFF) , the International Association of Fire Chiefs 
(lAFC) and other safety oriented organizations at the local or regional level. 
Research and engineering programs on protective clothing and eqviipment by the 
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , NIOSH and the National Fire Prevention and 
Control Administration (NFPCA) , have generated performance criteria in design 
specifications. This information is being used as the basis for standards 
writing activities now in progress in many states, in the Federal OSHA regula- 
tions and by volxmtary standards making organizations. 

Protective clothing and equipment should allow the firefighter to perform 
the various tasks required of him in the performance of his duty and to provide 
a high degree of protection against the hazards vhlch are expected to occur. 

Many fire departments use specifications for protective clothing and 
equipment based in part on manufacturer ' s prodioct information and on selected 
standards where available. Fire department specifications often include special 
features desired by a particular department, however, the advantages or dis- 
advantages of utilizing these special features are generally not transmitted from 
one department to another, primarily because most fire departments either cannot 
afford or do not have available the expertise to evaluate them. 

In t±ie past, efforts ain^d at imprcfving firefighters protective clothing 
and equipment by utilizing technology developed for other purposes, such as 
astronaut life support systems, have been minimal. The reason in part is that 
a "cottage type" industry serves the fire services, and does not have the 
resources to conduct the necessary research and development to transfer this 
technology to the firefighting conmunity. 

The NFPCA is currently conducting programs specifically aimed at devel- 
oping improved protective clothing and equa.pment for structural firefighters 
vdiich will be field tested and evaluated. The results of these research 
and development efforts will be made available to the entire fire service 
comnunity and will hopefully provide for the best protection possible 
utilizing available technology. 

Information on current standards, specifications and advancements in 
firefighter protective clothing and equipment is often not readily accessible 
to fire departments at the tine vtien they need it most — ^v^n purchasing new 
clothing and equipment. 

This document was prepared by NFPCA for fire department use, to provide 
an assessnent of the current state-of-the-art in protective equipment and 
relevant standards. This information can also be used as an aid in the 
development of purchase specifications for protective clothing and eqviipment. 

Available standards for firefighters' protective clothing and equipment 
are discussed in the following sections. Design features, conmon fire 
department practices , and manufacturing aspects are reviewed for helmets , 
face shields and goggles, fire coats and trousers, boots and shoes, gloves, 
station xjniforms and respiratory protective devices. 



Helmets in use by t±ie fire service today include the traditional leather 
helmets, aluminum and other metal helmets, a variety of helmets consisting of 
a plastic exterior shell and energy absorbing padding. The array of available 
helmets allow the fire department, or individual firefighter, a choice in style 
and confort with different levels of protecticsi. There is little guidance avail- 
able to ascertain the levels of protection afforded by a given helmet. Many of 
the currently available helmets used by the fire service are not considered 
adequate for the level of protection desired becaxjse of deficiencies in thermal 
stability, lack of full head protection against impact and penetration and 
ijnrealistically low flaranability properties. 

Protective helmets worn by industrial workers, the so-called hard-hats, 
are required by OSHA. to conform to the ANSI Standard for Industrial Head 
Protection (1) v^iich specifies construction features and performance criteria 
for inpact attenuation, penetration resistance, weight, water absorption and 
limited electrical insulation resistance. Performance requirements, for a 
protective helnet for firefighters are written into a si±>class of this standard. 
These requirenents can be met by most of the currently available helmets designed 
with a plastic exterior shell and suspension system. Metal helmets cannot meet 
those reqioirements due primarily to tiie inherent lack of protection against 
electrical hazards. While leather helmets meet the criteria for inpact and 
penetration, tiiey fail to meet the criteria for wei^t, water absorption and 
electrical insulation. The failure of the leather helmets to meet the requirements 
of the ANSI Standard is contrasted by their long-standing record of satisfactory 
performance in the fire service. Sane of the shortcomings for firefighting 
purposes in the ANSI Standard (1) to which many helmets are manufactured include: 
absence of a requirement for side, back and front protecticn against impact and 
penetraticn; a limited thermal cycle for hot and cold conditioning prior to 
inpact and penetration; a test for flam:nability T^Mch is not realistic relative 
to firefighter exposure in mode or intensity; and absence of a reqtoirement for 
a retention system and for visibility. 

Firefighters' helmets designed with a plastic exterior shell and energy 
absorbing padding generally meet the requirements of the ANSI Standard for 
protective headgear for vehicxilar users (2) . Helmets conform to this 
standard provide all around head protection fron impact and penetration in 
cOTitrast to those which meet the ANSI Standard for industrial workers (1) 
Ti^iich requires demonstration of protection only in a 3 -inch diameter circular 
area on top of the helmet. However, helmets vMch meet the vehicular lasers 
standard have not received wide acceptance by the fire service. Among other 
things, the close proximity of the interior of the helmet to the head can reduce 
the dissipation of heat frcxn the firefighters' head vMch is an important aspect 
in the physiological heat balance. This feature coiibined with an increased weight 
relative to the helnfits which meet the ANSI industrial standard tends to decrease 
confort. The shape of the helmets meets the vehicular standards and represents 
a drastic departure frcm the traditional shape of helmets accepted by the fire 
service. Since the ANSI standard (2) to vftiich these helmets conform was not 
developed for the fire service, and the thermal cycle prior to inpact and 
penetration is ijnrealistically low, they too have a number of deficiencies. 
Although all around head protection is required, the level of protection is 
less than is reqiiired in the industrial standard (1) . There is no requirement 
for visibility, weight, flamnability, nor electrical insulation. 


Research by NIOSH on head protection for industrial workers and firefighters 
(3,4) examined the origin and the significance of the reqiiirements in the ANSI 
Standards (1,2) and later led to the development of irrproved criteria (5). The 
NIOSH report conclvided that the performance requirenents set forth in the ANSI 
Standard for industrial protection (1) do not provide a satisfactory level of 
protection. Furthermore, the significance of some of the test methods and the 
criteria based thereon were questioned. The criteria set forth by the NIOSH 
report (5) reccnmended the development of a helmet vMch will represent a 
hybrid of presently available helmets in that it would provide all around head 
protection and offer the advantages of both the sling sxospension type and the 
foam lined t3ipe. 

The British Standards Organization p\±)lished specifications and performance 
criteria for firemen's helmets in 1965 (6). Helmets v^ch conform to the British 
Standard offer many of the protective features v^iich were suggested in the NIOSH 
stiidy. The helmet requires all around head protection against inpact and penetra- 
tion, under various conditions of tenperature and humidity. A chin strap is 
specified and strength reqiiirement is given. Protection against moderate electrical 
shock is required. The standard requires a test for flamiiability exposure vtoch 
is not particularly severe and water absorption. The specification requires a 
suspension system and energy absorbing padding to achieve the specified level of 
impact and penetration resistance. 

In 1975 the lAFF developed proposed sanple standards for protective clothing 
and equipment to be incorporated into state OSHA plans (7) . Ihe proposed standard 
for protective helmets for firefighters incorporates sioggestions put forth in the 
NIOSH study; the performance requirements are modeled in large part on the British 
Standard for Firemen's Helmets (6). The lAFF Standard details construction 
features and requires all around head protection against inpact and penetration. 
In addition, realistic performance requirements are set forth for thermal 
stability, water absorption, and electrical hazards. 

The National Fire Prevention and Control Administration (NFPCA) has sponsored 
a program at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to develop model performance 
criteria for structural firefighters' helmets (8). Laboratory experiments were 
conducted on currently available firefighters helmets to simulate the in-service 
conditions to which firefighters' helmets can be expected to be exposed (9). 
Consideration was also given to results of tests on helmets xosed by football players 
vMch were conducted in an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASIM) round 
robin evalioation (10) . The resulting criteria inclxided requirements for inpact 
attenuation and penetration resistance to all areas of the head, a chin strap and 
a strength test for same, ear flaps, a configuration aimed primarily at diverting 
falling liquids and debris, flame resistance and heat resistance based on realistic 
exposures and safety factors, electrical insulation, visibility and reflectivity, 
and labeling. Helmets viMch meet the model performance criteria will substantially 
increase the level of head protection for firefighters. The current state-of-the-art 
in helmet design and manufacturing can be errployed to produce such fire helmets. 
Moreover, the increased protection can be provided without an appreciable increase 
in cost and without sacrificing comfort. Helmets meeting these performance 
criteria became cotimercially available in early 1978. 


In early 1977, the model performance criteria developed by the NFPCA 
were submitted to the NFPA Coimittee on Protective Clothing and Equipment 
for Firefighters for its consideration in the development of a national 
consensios standard for structural firefighters helmets. The NFPA is currently 
in the process of promulgating a standard vMch will be specifically aimed 
at providing increased head protection for structural firefighters. In 
addition, the 0cci;5)ational Safety and Health Standards Board for the State 
of California adopted the model performance criteria as minimum requiranents 
for structural firefighters' helmets in their standard for personal protective 
clothing and eqmpment for firefighters. 


RETERENCES (Section 1: Helnets) 

1. Safety Requirements for Industrial Protection, ANSI Z89. 1-1969. 

2. Specifications for Protective Head Gear for Vehicular Users, ANSI 
Z90. 1—1971, Sijpplanent ANSI Z90.1a— 1973. 

3. Scalene, A.A. , "Development of Standards for Industrial and Firefighters 
Head Protective Devices: Volume 1, Criteria for Development of 
Standards for Industrial and Firefighters Head Protective Devices; 
Volume II, Reccnmended Standards for Industrial and Firefighters Head 
Protective Devices. PB-225 163, NIOSH Report, August (1973). 

4. Kamin, J. I, and A.A. Scalone, "NIOSH Safety Research on Protective Helmets," 
American Industrial Hygiene Association Jovimal, 489-502, August (1974). 

5. Development of Criteria for Industrial and Firefighters' Head Protective 
Devices, HEW Publication No (NIOSH) 75-145, January (1975). 

6. British Standard Specification for FIREMEN'S HEUCTS, B.S. 3864:Cl965.) 

7. "Proposed Sanple Standard for Fire Fighters Protective Clothing and Equip- 
ment, "(1975). International Association of Fire Fighters Washington, DC 20006. 

8. Model Performance Criteria for Structural Firefighters' Helmets, NFPCA, Jxoly 

9. Calvano N. , "Considerations in Establishing Performance Criteria for 
Structural Firefighters Helmets", NBSIR 77-1251. May (1977) 

10. Calvano, N. , ASTM Committee F8, Sports Equipment and Facilities, Round 
Robin Test Data. 



Firefighters wear several devices to protect the eye and face fron the 
adverse effects of airborne particles, hot irritating smoke and gases, thermal 
radiation, glare, sparks, liquids, debris and other hazards encountered at 
fires and other emergencies. Eye accidents constitute a high frequency incident 
^(^ch can result in the occurrence of severe injiiry and permanent disability (1) . 

The devices available for eye and face protection include various types of 
goggles, spectacles and face shields i^Mch are described in the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) standard (2) and the facepiece of self-contained 
breathing apparatus worn by firefighters. There is an irrportant distinction 
between devices which provide eye protection and devices \idiich may cover the eyes 
and a portion of the face, shielding the wearer from the environment. Spectacles 
and goggles vMch meet the applicable design and performance requirements of 
the ANSI standard (2) provide eye protection and are known as "safety glasses," 
Face shields are not designed to provide eye protection; face shields v^ich 
mset the applicable requirements of the ANSI standard (2) are primarily designed 
to provide protection to the face from flying particles, sprays of hazardous 
liquids, and glare. The standard specifically states that face shields should 
be worn over suitable basic eye protection. The facepiece of a self-contained 
breathing apparatus is in effect a face shield. The ANSI standard for respi- 
ratory protection (3) prohibits the wearing of contact lenses with self-contained 
breathing apparatus and requires the facepiece to meet pertinent sections of 
t±ie standard for eye and face protection (2) . 

The principal standard for eye and face protection is a voluntary consensxas 
standard for the industrial work place (2) . This standard does not contain any 
special performance requirements to reflect the environmental exposures to vMch 
firefighters are ejqjosed. Fvnrthermore , use conditions vhich include exposure to 
excessive debris inclijding smote and soot require a special performance require- 
nent for maintenance and cleaning. Recent NIOSH studies (4) revealed that many 
face shields cijrrently marketed and sold under alleged conformance to the indus- 
trial standard (2) fail to meet all the requirements. However, conformance was 
generally found for inpact, penetration and the limited flaranability requirement. 
The NIOSH study pointed out the deficiency in the use of face shields for primary 
eye protection. 

The devices ordinarily used by the fire service for eye and face protection 
consists of either a face shield attached to the helmet, safety goggles, or the 
facepiece of the self -contained breathing apparatus. Face shields are of dif- 
ferent designs but \hBn placed in the protective position generally cover the 
front and side of the face. Since most face shields are not designed to be 
worn over the facepiece of the self-contained breathing apparatus , the use of 
the latter results in the facepiece being placed in a position T^here it is 
exposed to all the smoke and debris in the fire environment. In practice, the 
face shield is often placed in this stored position even though breathing 
apparatus is not worn. One eye shield currently in use is designed so that 
approximately one half of the shield is covered by the brim of the helmet T^hen 
the shield is in the stored position. The limited area under the brim and the 
construction features of firefighters' helmets precliides the xose of this design 


technique far protecting a full face shield from the fire environment. The 
use of industrial goggles and spectacles by firefighters is limited by their 
incorrpatibility with other items of protective equipment, specifically helmets 
and breathing apparatus and the need to provide face shields for full protec- 

Face shield lenses are usually fabricated from polycarbonate or acrylic 
resins. Hence, cleaning presents special problems and often results in exces- 
sive scratching. Eyepieces of the self-contained breathing apparatus facepiece 
are also generally made from the same materials. In addition to the inpact 
resistant plastic materials, laminated "safety glass" can be used for the lenses 
of goggles and spectacles and thereby cleaning difficulties are significantly 


REFERENCES (Section 2: Face Shields and Goggles) 

1. International Association of Fire Fighters, Annual Death and Injury 
Svnrvey, 1974, 1975. 

2. Practices for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; ANSI 
Z87.1- 1958. 

3. Practice for Respiratory Protection; ANSI Z88.2- 1969. 

A. Canpbell, D.L. , "Industrial Face Shield Performance Test, " HEW Publication 
No. (NIOSH) 760156. 


In t±ie current state-of-the-art in the manufacture of fire coats worn by 
structural firefighters, two designs are xosed. One employs a fabric outer 
shell, a vapor barrier, and a permanent liner as the essential ccnponents. 
Ihe other design features a coated fabric outer shell and a permanent liner. 
Both types of coats are available in various lengths from a long, knee length 
to a short, hip length. The length of the fire coat is usually based upon 
different climatic conditions of the country and upon the modes of combinations 
of fire coats and boots and/or protective trousers. The knee length fire coat 
is often worn in cornbination with three-quarter length hip boots ; the hip 
length fire coat, is often worn with protective trousers and shorter boots or 

Fire coats designed with a fabric outer shell, a vapor barrier, and a 
permanent liner are worn by the majority of the Nation's firefighters. Prior 
to the advent of inherently fire resistant fabrics in conmercial production, 
this type of fire coat was manufactured with a cotton duck or canvas outer shell 
with fabric weights of 12 to 24 ounces per square yard. Such outer shells are 
easily ignited upon contact with open flames of modest intensity, and, once 
ignited, such fabrics continue to bum until manually extinguished. 

Fire Coats 

Outer shell material for fire coats of fire retardant treated cotton 
duck was introduced in the late sixties to inprove the level of protection 
against heat and flames which could ignite untreated cotton duck or canvas. 
Such coats did not receive wide acceptance by the fire service due in part 
to increased costs, resistance to change, limited marketing, and lack of a 
nationally accepted standard which would require such construction. 

The conmercial availability of inherently fire resistant fabrics especially 
fabrics woven from aramid fibers alone or in combination with other inherently 
fire resistant materials such as modacrylics or more thermally stable materials, 
such as novoloid, has led to an increased use of such materials for the outer 
shell or protective coats. The increased use was brou^t about by an increased 
demand for protective clothing motivated in part by a growing awareness of the 
potential dangers of many of the cvirrently used fire coats and well-coordinated 
marketing canpaigns by the manufacturers. Ihe availability of specifications 
(1, 2) requiring such outer shells and the eventual development of pijblished 
design criteria (3) and a consensus standard (4) also contributed to the 
increased use of inherently fire resistant materials for outer shells. 

Vapor barriers used in fire coats are usually separate liners of a thin- 
coated fabric seven to the permanent liner. Vapor barriers are designed to be 
inpervious to steam and moisture and to other liquids which can penetrate the 
fabric outer shell. Many of today's fire coats have vapor barrier materials 
vMch do not resist ignition. There is disagreement in published literature 
about the need for a fire resistant vapor barrier. An earlier NBS specification 
(2) did not reqiiire the vapor barrier to resist ignition, but while the later 
design criteria developed at NBS (3) and the NFPA Standard (4) do reqiiire the 
vapor barrier to resist ignition. The vapor barrier can also be attached as 
a coating to the back of the outer shell or to the outermost side of the permanent 
lining. Neoprene coatings typically enployed in the fabrication of vapor barriers 
can be formulated to resist ignition. 


Permanent liners make \jp the third integral component of fire coats manu- 
factured with fabric outer shells. A variety of fabrics are enployed in the 
construction of liners. There are many fire coats in use witii ordinary cotton 
liners; wool liners are ccomon in the colder climates. With the development 
of fire coats fabricated with fire resistant outer shells, fire retardant 
treated cotton fleece was introduced with a neoprene backing as a liner material, 
Sxjbsequently, inherently fire resistant materials including aramid were also 
enployed as a liner material. In many constructions the aramid was also 
coated with neoprene. An aramid construction known in industry as needle-puncih 
fabrication was employed for liners. As with vapor barriers, there is some 
difference in opinion regarding the need for resistance to ignition as a 
necessary property of liner material. The NBS design criteria (3) and the NFPA 
Standard (4) do reqiiire resistance to ignition for liners, while the NBS speci- 
ficatiai (2) for fire coats has no requirement for the flarnuability of the liner. 

In the construction of a fire coat it is generally agreed t±iat the pro- 
tective features are obtained by the coiibination of the outer shell, the vapor 
barrier and the liner. For this reason most coats are manufactured with these 
three caiponents sewn togetiier in conformance with cxirrent recannendations (3 , 4) . 
A construction with replaceable vapor barrier and liner — for exanple, a snap- 
out construction — would have the advantage of allowing a firefighter to replace 
wet or damaged liners with replacement parts and thereby returning the garment 
to a readily useable condition. One of the arguments for the sewn- in construction 
relates to enforcement procedures to ensure that firefighters responding to fires 
and other emergencies always wear a ccxipleted assembled fire coat. A secaid type 
of design used in the contruction of fire coats consists of a coated fabric outer 
shell and a permanent liner. The use of the coated shell eliminates the need 
for a separate vapor barrier. The specifications (1, 2), design criteria (3), 
and the NFPA Standard (4) do not adequately address the construction of a fire 
coat with a coated fabric outer shell. The design criteria pi±»lished by NBS (3^ 
briefly discuss the si±)ject of coated fabric outer shells and indicate that svch 
materials do not currently meet the requirements. The subject of a different 
design capability v^iich can be enployed for coated outer shells is not disciossed. 
The advantages of coated outer shells for water repellency is mentioned. The 
NFPA Standard (4) mentions coated fabric outer shells in the Appendix and suggests 
t±at additioial property data should be obtained for such materials. No methods 
are sxjggested for measiiring the properties cited and no discussion of the level 
of rated performance is given. Coated fabric outer shell coats have evolved from 
the traditicnal rubber coat vdriich was worn by the fire service for many years , 
especially in the nort±em climates. The original designs were a one-piece 
construction of a heavy rubber coating on cotton, and firefighters generally wore 
jackets or similar short-waisted garments under the rubber fire coat. With the 
advent of synthetic rubbers after World War II, a lighter-weight rubber coat 
consisting of a sjmtiietic rubber on cotton fleece was introduced. This coat 
was a single-layer construction and was generally made without any regard for 
t±ie flamnability of the rubber or the lining. There is less published information 
en this type of coat t±ian on coats manufactured with fabric outer shells. An 
incident in the Boston Fire Department in 1967 demonstrated the potential hazard 
in this type of coat (5) . Siibsequently, fire coats were specified to be designed 
with coated fabric outer shells and separate liners. The construction, like 
the analogous fabric outer shell coat (with fabric barrier and liner) , can be 
losed to produce protective fire coats. Specifications were developed (6) ^ich 
required resistance to ignition in coated fabric outer shells and liners for 
this type of coat. The protective nature of this type of coat has been demon- 
strated in the field (7) and in laboratory tests (8). 


The materials used in the outer shells of fire coats manufactured with 
coated fabrics include fire retardant neoprene combinations, fire retardant 
polyvinylchloride (PVC) formulations, and other proprietary coatings. Materials 
used for the liners include the neoprene coated fire retardant cotton fleece 
and the neoprene coated aramid needle-punch fabric. Wool and ordinary cotton 
can also be used as liner materials depending upon requiranents for resistance 
to ignition. 


Firefighters ' trousers provide protection for the legs , thighs , and buttocks . 
The full protection needed for the thighs and buttocks can only be achieved by 
caiibining a fire coat which extends to the knees with fully extended 3/4 length or 
hip boots, or a shorter length fire coat with protective trousers and boots or 
safety shoes. 

Protective trousers can also be worn with the longer coats, and this practice 
is cannon in colder climates, especially during the nightirae hours. Protective 
trousers worn with knee length boots are contnonly known as a "night hitch" or 
"boots and bunkers." Serious injxiries to firefighters have resulted from inade- 
quate protection of the thighs and buttocks. Protective trousers used in 
conjunction with a protective fire coat can significantly reduce the incidence 
of these injuries and otherwise allow the firefighter to accocnplish his work. 

Protective trousers are constructed wit±i a woven or coated fabric exterior 
or outer shell and a full-legged liner with a moisture barrier between the 
outer shell and liner. Outer shell construction features are analogous to 
those with fire coats and the same materials are employed. A coated fabric 
outer shell permits water to run off with no absorption. The moisture barrier 
can be a separate layer or a coating on the outer side of the liner. A 
detachable winter liner is usually provided to cover the thigh, buttocks, and 
upper leg areas for added warmth in cold climates. 

Although pi±)lished specifications (1, 2) design criteria (3), and the 
NFPA Standard (4) provide details for the cocoponent parts of a fire coat 
incliiding trim and other accessories, there are no requirements for demonstra- 
tion of the thermal protective qualities which must be provided in the assembled 
garment. In programs carried out at the National Bureau of Standards, the 
assembled coat was required to have a particular thickness and a maximum total 
weight but there was no thermal test to ensure that the finished garment 
provided a level of protection against the types of thermal hazards vAiich 
could ordinarily be encountered by firefighters in the performance of their 
duties. Utech's detailed design analysis of a firefighter's turnout coat 
addresses the thermal hazards and discusses failure modes including bum 
protection, heat esdiaustion, infra-red reflectance, thermal resistance, and 
heat capacity (9) . The need for resistance to ignition is discussed and the 
inadequacy of flame resistance as a design parameter to insure protection 
from bxjrns is noted. 

A proposed standard developed by lAFF (10) details construction requirements 
of fire coats and trousers for fabric outer shell clothing and coated fabric outer 
shell clothing. Requirements are put forth for resistance to ignition by outer 
shells, vapor barriers, liners, and winter liners. In addition, a thermal pro- 
tection performance requirement for the assembled coat construction (without the 


opticsial winter liner) is developed on the basis of tiie laboratory test results 
published by Molter C8) . The test procedure requires exposure of the coat 
construction consisting of the outer shell, vapor barrier and lining to a 
calibrated heat flvK of 2.0 cal/ sec or 8.4 iwatts/ v^Mch is 
50 percent ccnvective heat and 50 percent radiant heat. The failxjre point in 
the test is obtained by a thermal sensing device positioned behind the fire 
coat assembly. The output of the sensing device is correlated with the human 
skin tolerance to heat on the threshold of second degree bums. The details of 
the method are provided in a publication by Behnke (11) . The f ailiire criteria 
developed in the lAET standard are based on test results obtained by Behnke 's 
nethod that were earlier published by Molter (8) . 


REFERENCES (Section 3: Fire Coats Trousers) 

1. Fire Departinent Specifications: Cleveland Fire Department (1970). 

2. Utech, H.P., Purchase Specifications, Turnout Coats, Firefighter's, MBS 
Report ID650, Decenber (1971). 

3. Eisle, J., Design Criteria for Firefighters' Turnout Coats, NBSIR 75-702, 
October (1975). 

4. Protective Clothing for Structural Fire Fighting, NFPA No. 1971, Novenber (1975). 

5. Clougjierty, E.V. "Boston's Experience with Protective Clothing." Fireman 
(Mag.), Vol 35, No 10 (1968). 

6. Boston Fire Department Specification for Fire Coats. 

7. Personal CcranLnication, Boston Fire Department. 

8. Molter, J. "Advances in Protective Clothing, " Fire Engineering, Noveriber (1975), 

9. Utech, H. , "The Firefi^ter's Turnout Coat: A Design Analysis, " J. Safety 
Research, Vol 6, 2-14 (1974). 

10. "Proposed Sample Standard for Fire Figjhters Protective and Equipment, " 
(1975), Intemational Association of Fire Figjhters, Washington, D.C. 20006 

11. Behnke, W.P. "Thermal Protective Performance Test for Clothing, Fire 
Technolgy, Vol 13 (1977) 



Firefighters wear boots or shoes in caiJTjnction with protective fire coats 
and trousers and station ijnifonns to cover and protect their feet and legs 
against the environnent and hazards encountered at fires and other emergencies. 
Firefighters' boots are generally available in four lengths designed to 
extend coverage to the ankle, knee, 3/4 of the thigh, or full hip. Fire- 
fighters also wear industrial work shoes of various types including low 
quarters, ankle high, and leg boots. There are also boots vhich are designed 
to fit over work shoes. The length of the shoe and/ or boot should be determined 
by the length of the fire coat and the practice of the particular fire depart- 
nent with respect to the wearing of protective trousers and the type of station 
ijniform. Exanples of combinations of foot and leg protection inclvide: a 3/4 
length boot and a fire coat which extends to the biees; knee length boots ijnder 
protective trousers with a hip length fire coat; ankle high industrial work 
shoes with protective trousers and a hip length fire coat. 


Firefighters can choose boots from an array of styles and lengths with 
different protective features and accessories, manufactured specifically for 
the fire service. Although there is no volvntary standard cijrrently available 
to detail performance requirements and construction features manufacturers do 
reference standards for certain protective features such as iirpact protection 
for toes based on performance criteria of an ANSI Standard \jh±ch was designed 
for industrial work shoes (1) and puncture protection for soles xosing a 
military specification for firef inters' boots (2). Manufacturers also offer 
boots with special construction features, incltoding additional insole insula- 
tion, special linings, extra rubber bunpers in hi^ wear areas and reflective 
rubbers for increased visibility. 

Boots manufactured for firefighters are for the most part intended to be 
worn without shoes and in practice are often worn without socks. Accordingly, 
the choice of materials and the method of manvifacture enployed for the interior 
of the boot are a very itiportant aspect of a quality boot manxofacturing operation. 
Generally, boots are constructed with a rubber exterior, usiially black in color 
due to the use of carbon black fillers. The inside of the boot is lined with 
a fabric or conposition to provide comfort and prevent chafing, blisters and 
other deleterious reactions. The base of a typical boot consists of a durable 
outsole and several insoles with a toe cap often covered with a rubber bucnper. 
The outsole may be knurled or cleated to enhance traction on working surfaces; 
a protective insole may be inclxjded to provide protection against penetration 
by sharp objects; an insulating insole may be added to increase the warmth of 
t±ie boot, and a steel box toe cover may be enployed to protect against falling 
objects and caipressive force. A ladder shank is built into the insole to 
distribute the body weight when the wearer is working off ladders. The construc- 
tion of the heel and outsole is designed for ladder work. A multiple corstruction 
of rubber and fabrics cover the top of the foot and extends (depending upon length) 
to the knee. Features of cOTistruction vMch can be included in this section of 
the boot include an inpact resistant reinforcement at the shin, additional insxila- 
tive material in the l^ee area and special linings for warmth and comfort. A 
flexible lined rubber skirt extends from the knee to the thigh in 3/4 length boots 
and to the hip in hip length boots. 


The boots manufactured for firefighters are designed and constnacted to 
provide warmth and comfort to the wearer in the performance of his duties en 
the fire ground. Inportant features of boots manufactured for the fire service 
should include the ability to obtain proper fit, slip resistant outsoles, 
functional design for clinibing and working off ladders, toe protection, shin 
and knee protection, penetration resistant insoles, insxilative insoles and 
protection against water and solvents, the thermal environment and electrical 
hazards. Durability of the rubber exterior, the stitching and adhesives and 
the interior of the boot are also inparted by appropriate materials selection 
and manufacturing methodology. 

In practice, manufacturers offer many models with different cotiibinations 
of length, style, protective features and accessories. There is no volijntary 
standard for firefighters to which a finished boot should conform. A limited 
number of protective features are manufactured tp coiform to particular standards 
or specifications; for exanple, protection of toes against impact and cocpressive 
force is demonstrated by conformance to performance criteria in a volijntary 
standard— in this case, the ANSI Standard, Men's Safety-Toe Footwear (1). The 
latter was written for industrial work shoes, and it provides criteria for 
different classifications. Class 75 is often cited for models vMch have added 
toe protection. To meet the criteria for "Class 75" the toe construction must 
provide 0.5 inch clearance after a 75 foot pound impact and after 2500 pounds 
corpression. This protection is obtained by steel box toe construction. 
Protection against penetration through the Insole is demonstrated by citing 
conformance to a specification; e.g., the military specification for Firemen's 
Boots (2) cites a minimum ptncture resistance of 200 pounds vfhen tested in a 
specific manner using a new 8 D coranon nail. It is conmon for manufacturers to 
cite a specification for a grade of stainless steel for the protective insole 
to guard against the deterioration of the insole by, for exanple, rusting. 
Conversely, a purchaser can specify the performance requirement and/ or the 
stainless steel midsole. The area irrmediately adjacent to the insole is 
particularly s;isceptible to injury by ptjncture; this area is not protected by 
the type of steel insole currently enployed. The performance requirement 
to assxjre the physical integrity of boots against inward leakage of water 
and solvents in the military specification (2) involves subjecting the inside 
of an inmsrsed boot to an air pressure of 1 psi. Some manufacturers cite this 
performance characteristic for their boots. The remaining features of comfort 
and protection are generally claimed by manufacturers for one or more styles 
by citing a construction feature; for exanple, "felt lined for warmth and 
comfort," "cleat grip sole for surer footing and loiger wear," without reference 
to performance criteria based on an engineering test. This practice is wide- 
spread among the manufacturers of boots for firefighters. In many cases 
there are no acceptable test methods on vMch to base acceptance criteria. 
There is generally a specification for weight of a particular style and size. 
There is no accepted thermal protection performance requirement. Protection 
against electrical hazards is generally not specified althougih a level of 
protection is provided. The level of electrical protection is reduced in part 
tjy the use of conductive carbon black fillers required for physical and chemical 
properties. The ability of boot manufacturers to provide boots of proper fit 
is limited by the practice of manufacturing only in vhole numbered sizes. 



The safety shoe Industry is a much larger manufacturing operation than 
the firefighter boot industry. While boots for firefighters offering a range 
of protective features are specifically manufactured for the fire service, 
the shoes worn by firefighters are for the most part industrial work shoes 
having added protection sxoch as puncture resistant insoles or extra reinforce- 
ments available in a limited nunfoer of styles. Firefighters can assure 
themselves of protection against innpact and penetration by purchasing safety 
shoes vMch meet the same standards vMch were cited for boots . In general , 
the same standard is referenced for ictpact protection (1) vMle the penetra- 
tion protection is generally cited by reference to a specification for a 
stainless steel or 'puncture proof insole. There is a Canadian Standard 
for industrial safety shoes which references performance criteria for inpact 
resistance and coipression strength of the toe construction and protection 
against penetration through the insole (3) . The standard also cites other 
construction features. According to the Canadian Standard, safety features 
can be classified as one of the six types with different levels of protection 
applicable to different occupational hazards. 


REFERENCES: (Section 4: Boots and Shoes) 

1. ANSI ZAl. 1-1967 (R1972) , Men's Safety-Toe Footwear. 

2. MrL-B-2885D, Military Specifications, Boots, Fireman's, 23 May 1973. 
Amended 29 December 1975. 

3. CSA Standard Z195-1970, Safety Footwear. 



Firefighters wear gloves in conjxjnction with other turnout clothing to 
cover and protect the hands and wrists against the environmental hazards i^xLch 
are encountered at fires and other emergencies. Available data show that while 
cut and puncture injuries occur with the highest frequency, more severe inj-uries 
result from bums (1) , 

Many firefighters wear an industrial work glove selected on the basis of 
cost, availability, and usefulness to the individual. Fire departments have 
developed specificaticns for glove procurements ■which are based for the most 
part on field evaluation trials of gloves developed by a particular manufacturer 
(2) . There are no voluntary consensiis standards for gloves for firefighters . 
The lAFF proposed sanple standards for firefighters' protective clothing and 
equipment include requirements for a protective glove (3). NIOSH sponsored 
research to develop performance criteria for firefighters ' gloves (4) . 

Firefighters' gloves are manufactured by ccnpanies \^fco are primarily 
involved in the production of industrial work gloves. Hence, developments 
in the design and construction of firefighters' gloves have paralleled devel- 
opnents in industrial safety gloves. Industrial safety gloves are available 
in limited size ranges; many are available only in one size. Several materials 
and designs are used for firefighters' gloves. Outer surfaces include cotton, 
leather, wool and the inherently fire resistant fabrics (e.g., aramid or 
novoloid) . Variations in design inclxode the length and construction of the 
portioi of the glove vMch covers the wrist from open gauntlets to tight 
fitting wristlets. Sane designs enploy a wear resistant material for the 
palm and a fabric for the back. Increased thermal protection is obtained 
by the addition of linings and in special designs by the utilization of a 
netallized exterior coating to reflect radiant heat. Protection against 
potentially harmful chemicals can be obtained in part by specifjong outer 
covering materials which are inpervioios to liquids and substantially 
chemically inert such as special neoprene rubber formulations. Ind-us trial 
safety gloves and currently available firefighters' gloves are not designed 
to provide protection against adverse weather conditions. Most gloves are 
not suitable for careful mechanical manipulation of knobs or buttons 
«2i'i.countoJed in fir«ifj-gl.j.tjj.ig equipmLkti,. 

The operational requiranents for firefighters' gloves include: ability 
to function under severe exposure to water as would be encountered in operating 
hose lines or performing routine firefighting evolutions v*iile hose lines are 
operating; manual dexterity for grip and manipulation of hand tools; and ability 
to discern the shapes of various objects which could be encountered in search 
activities tjnder conditions of severely reduced visibility inside of a building 
during a fire. Protection against adverse cold weather conditions is required 
in certain climates. Protection against cuts, bruises and punctures shoxild be 
given priority on the basis of the demonstrated significantly high occurrence 
rate of hand and wrist injuries (5). However, thermal protection against 
radiant and convective heat ejiposure and thermal contact with hot objects \Ailch. 
can be encountered at fires is also required. Although these requirements can 
be set forth in qualitative terms, there are no performance standards \^iich can 
be referenced to specify these reqvdrements in a quantitative manner. The 
NIOSH study addressed this problem and proposed performance requirement tests 
Txhich appear to correlate with the qualification requirements (4) . The proposed 
methods are not reference standards ^ich have been verified for reproducibility 
or applicability for the desired levels of protection and the necessary func- 
tional req-uirements . 


Efforts to address the problem of specifjring a performance requirement 
for thermal properties of gloves have taken two approaches. Several studies 
have proposed thermal endurance requirements vising, for example, exposure 
to a quantitative radiant heat flxix. for a specified time and criteria for 
acceptability in terms of allowable heat transfer, and other flammability 
tests of the materials of construction and reqioires resistance to ignition 
by specifying contact with a flame and allowable flaming after removal from 
the flame. In both thermal exposures it is inportarxt to specify resistance 
to melting xjnder the conditions of test for cotiponents vMch are worn in 
contact with the skin; for exanple, wristlets and linings. 


FEEERENCES (Section 5: Gloves) 

1. "Annual Death and Injiory Survey" International Association of Fire 
Fighters, Washington, DC (1974) . 

2. Philadelphia Fire Department Glove Specifications, Philadelf^iia, 
Pennsylvania, Cleveland Fire Department Glove Specifications, 
Cleveland, CMo. Boston Fire Department Glove Specifications, 
Boston, Massachusetts 

3. "Proposed Saitple Standards for Fire Filters Protective Clothing 
and Equipment" (1975) . International Association of Fire Fighters, 
Washington, DC 20006. 

4. Coletta, G.C., et. al., "The Developient of Criteria for Firefighters' 
Gloves, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication Nos. 77-134-B. 

5. "A Ccrrprehensive Study of Fire Fighting Injuries and Injury Reporting 
Systans" International Association of Fire Filters, Washington, DC 
20006, NFPCA Grant No. 76056, August (1977). 



Station uniforms are not in themselves protective clothing. The station 
uniform is part of the protective ensemble v^ch is usually worn when respond- 
ing to fires and other emergencies. The complete protective ensemble is 
required to allow the firefighter to safely and efficiently acconplish the 
tasks vAiich are required in the performance of his duty and to provide a 
high degree of protection against the hazards which are reasonably expected 
to occur. 

Firefighters wear station xjniforms consisting of a shirt and trousers or 
a one-piece coverall garment; in sane departments a short waist-length jacket 
is also worn. The shirts can have long or short sleeves. Station iniforms 
are worn in the fire stations for the cotiplete tour of duty during TAMch fire- 
fighters are engaged in a variety of work assignments to maintain fire apparatus, 
equipment and the living facilities. This clothing is intended to be worn 
underneath protective fire coats and other protective clothing and equipment 
when firefighters respond to fires and other emergencies. In practice, station 
uniforms are not always worn vander coiplete protective clothing. Depending 
;jpon their length, protective free coats generally cover the statidn vmiform 
above the hips leaving the leg portion exposed unless covered by boots or 
protective trousers. The practice of wearing on the fire ground an exposed 
single layered fabric tnaterial on any part of the body seriously ccrapronises 
the level of protection which is currently available with properly designed 
protective clothing and equipment. 

Station uniforms are generally available from maniofacturers and distri- 
butors of firefighters' clothing in a range of materials varying from cotton 
polyester blends used for indxjstrial work clothes to newer developed inher- 
ently fire resistant fabrics marketed for occupations such as foundry and 
steel mill workers and firefighters which require special protective features. 
In practice station ijniforms are also pxjrchased frcsn retail clothing stores 
and work uniform outlets. 

Station uniforms are required to have certain functional properties 
coimon for the most part to industrial work clothes. Permanence of color, 
good wear characteristics and comfort in the work environment have to be 

Ifeiy fire departments vse station uniforms made from cotton and polyester 
fabric blends v^ich are not treated to provide resistance to ignition. Cloth- 
ing made fron cotton polyester blends has received widespread vise on the basis 
of "wash and wear, permanent press" characteristics. In considering the safety 
aspects of such clothing for firefighters, one has to take into the account 
the local practice regarding outer protective clothing. If the station uniform 
is ccrapletely covered by protective clothing, the requirement for any protective 
features in the station imiform is substantially less than the requirement when 
the station uniform is exposed at a fire or other emergency. In this regard, 
the requirement for protective features in station uniforms is generally more 
restrictive for pants than shirts since in current practice the lower part of 
the leg is more likely to be exposed as, for example, \\here the practice is 
to respond with a fire coat (of a given length) over the station imiform, no 
protective trousers, and safety shoes in place of boots. In examining this 
practice, it is significant that the lower extremeties are generally exposed 
to a lower tenperature environment in structural fires. 


In the past several years scxne consideration has been given to the use 
of treated and inherently flame-resistant fabrics for station uniforms. This 
subject is cimrently being reviewed in a number of fire departments due to 
reports of bum injuries aggravated by the failure and melting of cotton 
polyester fabrics, and to the increased availability of fabrics vMch can 
offer sane resistance to ignition (1), Fire retardant treated cotton and 
wool and inherently fire resistant materials such as modacrylics, aramids 
and novoloids are being considered. The New York Fire Department has accepted 
flame-resistant cotton as the material for their station uniforms. All the 
fabrics being offered as replacements for the cotton and cotton polyester 
blends are considerably more expensive. 

There is a lack of accepted standards for station imiforms. The lAFF 
has proposed a standard which requires that the fabric resist ignition and 
melting (2). The ISO subconmittee on "flameproof clothing" has proposed 
general requirements regarding potential problems with fusible materials 
viiich can melt in contact with the wearer's skin (3). 

The protection afforded by station unifonns as part of the protective 
ensemble relates to protection against heat transfer through the outer pro- 
tective clothing sudi as a fire coat, protective trousers, or protective boots. 
In developing performance criteria for firefighters' station uniforms, it is 
necessary to require that materials enployed for station uniforms resist melting, 
deconpositicn , or any physical or chemical process vAiich would degrade their 
thermal properties in the range of heat flux and times that can be anticipated 
under their outer protective clothing and equipment. Fijrthermore , in the event 
of failure of the outer protective clothing and equipment, it is probable that 
the station uniform itself will be ejqjosed to flame and/ or a severe thermal 
environment. There is a lack of knowledge on the behavior of fabrics under 
turnout clothing and equipnent \h.en. exposed to a thermal load against which 
the turnout clothing is designed to protect. Current practice requires that 
such fabrics resist ignition and melting fran exposure to flame and/or a 
severe theimal environment. 


REFERENCES (Section 6: Station Uniforms) 

1. New York Daily News, January 16, 1975. 

2. "Proposed Sample Standards for Fire Fighters Protective Clothing and 

Equipnent." (1975) International Association of Fire Fighters 
Washington, D.C. 20006 

3. ISO/TC 94/ SC 9- Flameproof Clothing (January, 1968) . 



Firefighters wear self contained breathing apparatus for respiratory 
protection in hazardous atmospheres encountered at fires and other emergencies. 
Federal agencies including NIOSH, MSHA, and DOT vMch are involved in the 
regulation of respiratory protective devices have developed construction and 
performance requirements for the "approval" of breathing apparatus for general 
industry. Although generally required to use such "approved" breathing apparatus 
firefighters generally characterize the available devices as excessively teavy 
and bulky, of insufficient duration and unreliable at fires due to mechanical 
breakdown. The demands placed on breathing apparatus by the fire service far 
exceed the performance requirements ^lich the Federal regulatory agencies enploy 
in their approval schedules. 

The lack of suitable breathing apparatus for use in firefighting has led 
in many instances to an unacceptable practice of minimal v/earing of respiratory 
protective devices. Firefighters often chose not to wear any breathing apparatus 
at fires unless heavy smoke conditions were apparent. When the decision was made 
to wear breathing apparatus at a particular location, firefighters would remove 
the devices as soon as the smoke conditions abated, as for exanple, during over- 
haul procedures. Resiilts of occupational health surveys have demonstrated a 
correlation of firefighting experience with prevalent rates of chronic non-specific 
respiratory disease (1) . Other studies of respiratory disease in firefighters 
have demonstrated adverse health effects due to exposure to the fire environment 
(2 , 3 , 4) . The shortcomings of the available breathing apparatus and the known 
respiratory hazards encountered by f iref igjiters cctiibine to produce a dilenma 
\*iich is not fully appreciated by the majority of occupational safety specialists 
including firefighters, research scientists and regulatory officials. 

Until the late 1960's two types of respiratory protective devices were 
cctinoily used by firefighters. The fiill-faqepiece filter mask was routinely 
used in structural firefighting. The light weight (7 pounds) and small bulk 
of the filter mask caribined to produce a high degree of acceptance. The 
inherent limitations of filter masks, including inability to function in 
atiODspheres depleted of oxygen and in high concentration of carbon monoxide 
were known. However, the significance of these limitations on the degree of 
respiratory protection afforded was not fully understood. Following the 
occtirence of several incidents in which firefighters wearing filter masks 
died from acute respiratory ailments, the xise of this t37pe of equipment was 
banned by several fire departments. In 1971 the NFPA published a standard 
(5) v^iich prohibited the use of filter masks for firefighting. Sxibsequently, 
the ANSI Coimittee on Respiratory Protection published a standard on the 
selection, care and use of respiratory devices for the fire service (6) , as 
a follow-up to an earlier "general" standard (7) . 

Many fire departnents had used closed circuit self contained breathing 
apparatus (SCBA) to complement the filter masks for fires in subbasements , 
tunnels, si±way systems, ships and in other locations where oxygen deficient 
atmospheres and high concentration of carbon monoxide could be anticipated. 
Closed circuit SCBA, generally called "rebreathers , " recycle the exhaled breath 
through a chemical cartridge to remove carbon dioxide and store the cleaned air 
in a bag to vihldb. oxygen is added to replenish the quantity of oxygen used during 
inhalation. The air in the bag is then inspired and the process repeated. The 
oxygen reqxaired to replenish the air is produced by a chemical reaction within 
the purification cartridge in one type of rebreather, and in another type, a 
small cylinder of coipressed oxygen is used. Presently available rebreathers 


■weighing 12-20 pounds can supply respirable air for 45 to 60 minutes. The 
inability of the wearer to temporarily remove and redo the facepiece of this 
apparatus in the fire environment, as is often the practice to better ascertain 
the state of physical conditions, has limited the acceptance of rebreathers 
by the fire service. This practice could lead to contamination of the recycled 

As the limitations of the filter mask became more apparent in the late 
1960's, the use of open circuit cccnpressed air SCEA was substantially increased 
by the fire service. In open circuit SCBA breathing air is stored in a 
pressure cylinder which is carried by the wearer. The cornpressed air is 
reduced to ambient pressure and passes through a regulator to the facepiece 
yheve it is inspired and the exhaled breath is released to the atmosphere. 
TX^ types of regulators are used to control the flow of air to the wearer. 
Regulators which operate in the demand mode are activated by the inhalation 
of the wearer. A slight negative pressure must be established in the face- 
piece during inspiration to establish air flow. Regulators v^Mch operate 
in a positive pressure mode are activated by the decrease in pressure in 
the facepiece during inspiration; however a slight positive pressure is 
always maintained in the facepiece. 

Although open circuit coipressed air SCBA equipment has been purchased 
by many fire departments since the late 1960 ' s , their acceptance and use by 
firefighters have been limited. Initial field experience on the fire ground 
raised a nxjmber of objections to the extensive use of these units. Among 
other things, field ejqDerience demonstrated excessive bulk and weight (33 
pounds for the conmonly used model) , relatively short duration (15-20 minutes) 
and a high frequency of operational difficulties resulting in decreased 
reliability. In addition, the wearability of this type of breathing 
apparatus has been limited by poorly fitting facepieces with resulting 
pressure points, poor visibility and poor comiunication. As a result of 
these difficulties, the initial enthusiasm of the fire service for this type 
of respiratory protection was eroded and over a period of years many firefighters 
stopped wearing any kind of breathing apparatus. This practice eventually 
led to increased respiratory health problems (1, 2, 3, 4) and hampered 
effective firefighting procedures. 

Breathing apparatus manufactured in the United States is designed and 
constructed to meet the performance requirements prescribed in approval 
schedules originally developed and irrplemented by the Bijreau of Mines and 
currently under the jurisdictions of NIOSH and MSHA. The conpressed gas 
cylinders vised in breathing apparatus are regulated by the U.S. Department 
of Transportation. The first approval schedule was published in 1919, and 
additions were made in 1930, 1935, 1946, 1956, 1968 and 1972 (8). The 
approval schedules were developed to provide requirements for acceptable 
respiratory protection in hazardoxas atmospheres encountered by miners. 
Subsequently, industrial needs for respiratory equipment became apparent 
and the approval schedules were modified. The increased use of open circuit 
SCBA by the fire service in the late 1960 's occurred without any changes in 
existing equipment v^ich was designed for mine safety and industrial use, 
and conformed to the pertinent approval schedules. NIOSH and MSHA assumed 
jurisdiction of the approval schedules for respiratory protective devices 
in 1972. The numerous problems encountered by the fire service in the use 
of breathing apparatus which conform to the approval schedules attest to 


t±ie need of major revisions to take into account the working conditions of 
firefighters, the special environment encountered by firefighters and the 
work rates vhich are often expended on the fireground. The need for a 
revision in the performance requirement relating to work rate is apparent 
to any firefighter xi^ho has worn a breathing apparatus T\hich was "approved" 
by NIOSH and MSHA for 30 minutes duration and continually found in practice 
to be expended in 15 to 20 minutes, and on occasion at higher work rates, in 
as little as 12 minutes. The need for revision of the approval schedules for 
respiratory protective devices to take into account the special needs of the 
fire service was recognized by recent action of NIOSH and MSHA to solicit 
input from the fire service organizations and other interested parties (9) . 
Extensive public testimony presented at the NIOSH-MSHA hearing reiterated 
the inadeqijacies of presently available SCBA for the use conditions and 
environments encountered by firefighters and the need for approval schedules 
relevant to firefighting needs (10). In response to this, NIOSH has 
established a working group representing NIOSH, OSHA, MSHA and NFPGA to 
revise the approval schedules for breathing apparatus vhich will reflect 
the firefighters' requirements. 

SCBA should be developed specifically for the fire service, and reflect 
both the needs and the operating conditions experienced by firefighters. It 
was specifically requested that NIOSH/MSHA allow SCBA v^ich operates in 
either demand or positive pressure at the option of the wearer. The reqxaest 
was made on the basis of the presently available positive pressure models 
Tfthich have alledged operational shortcomings relative to their safe and 
efficient use on the fire ground. The respiratory protection achieved by 
closed circuit and open circuit SCBA is determined by several factors 
including facepiece fit. Studies have shown that 90 to 95 percent of the 
U.S. male population can be fit with one full facepiece (11). Thus, most 
manufacturers have only one facepiece size available although the human 
face varies in size and form. However, facepiece fit should be evaluated 
by individual leakage tests and this tjTpe of testing is not generally been 
performed on firefighters. One approach to minimizing the effects of 
varying facial contours is to issue individual facepieces to firefighters. 
Sane improvement in fit can develop as the facepiece is used to adjiost to 
the same individual. The mode of operation governs the air flow and air 
pressure in the facepiece. Leakage problems are more significant with 
breathing apparatus in vihlch negative pressure relative to ambient pressijre 
is produced in the facepiece during operation. 


REFERENCES (Section 7: Respiratory Protective Devices) 

1. Sidor, R. , and Peters, J.M. , "Prevalence Rates of Chronic Nonspecific 
Respiratory Disease in Firefighters, " Am. Rev. Resp. Dis., Vol. 109, 
255-261 (1974). 

2. Thomas, D.M. , "The Smoke Inhalation Problem, "Proceedings of Synposium 
on Occi^ational Health and Hazards of the Fire Service, Notre Dame 
IMiversity, 1971, International Association of Fire Fighters, Washington, D.C. 
20006, p. 21. 

3. Peters, J.M. ,, "Chronic Effects of Fire Fighting on Pulmonary 
Function, New England J. of Med., Vol 291, 1320-1322 (1974). 

4. Peabody, H.O. , "Pulmonary Function and the Fire Fighters," J. Comb. Tox. , 
Vol. 4, 8-15 (1977) 

5. Respiratory Protective Equipment for Firefighters, NFPA Standard No. 19B 

6. Practices for Respiratory Protection for the Fire Service, ANSI 
Z88.5 (1973). 

7. Practices for Respiratory Protection, ANSI Z88.2 (1969). 

8. Bureau of Mines Approval Schedules 13 (1919), 13A (1930), 13B (1935), 
13C(1946), 130(1956), 13E(1968); NIOSH/MESA Approval Schedule 13H(1972). 

9. Federal Register, Notice of Public Meeting by NIOSH/MESA Solicting 
Proposals on Revision of 6 CFR Part II 

10. Minutes of NIOSH/MESA Public Meeting on Proposals for Revision of 30 CFR 
Part II, Department of Labor, (Docket Office), Washington, D.C. 

11. Hyatt, E.C.,, "Respiratory Efficiency Measurements Using 
Quantitative DOP Test, "J.M. Inst. Hyg. Assoc, Vol 33, (1972). 


(Firefighter Integrated Response Equipment System) 

The NFPCA, in conjunction with the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, is working on Project FIRES to develop a prototype 
integrated system of protective clothing and equipment for firefighters. 
Phase I of the Project, now in progress, calls for the redesign of a 
firefighter's protective envelope from helmets to boots. Now, one 
tnanufacturer produces boots ^^lich may or may not corrpliment trousers. 
Trousers and turnout coats vary in cctipability. And helmets, face 
shields and breathing apparatus may be difficxilt to coordinate. Project 
FIRES is considering all cctrponents and redesigning an integrated system 
for firefighter protection. 

Working on Project FIRES are NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight 
Center, Huntsville, Alabama; Grunman Aerospace Corp., Bethpage, N.Y. , 
the NASA contractor; and Public Technology, Inc., Washington, D.C., vhLch 
works with the User Reqiiirements Coimittee. 

Further information and reports are available fron: 

Aidrew F. Sears 

Manager, Fire Services Technology 


P.O. Box 19518 

Washington, DC 20036 

k U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1978— 281-067/343